State ex rel. Handley v. Superior Court of Marion County, 1

Decision Date25 June 1958
Docket NumberNo. 1,J,R,No. 29690,1,29690
Citation238 Ind. 421,151 N.E.2d 508
PartiesSTATE of Indiana on the Relation of Harold W. HANDLEY, Relator, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, Roomohn M. Ryan, Judge of the Superior Court of Marion County, Roomespondents.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Smith & Yarling, Indianapolis, for relator.

Fulmer & Myers, Indianapolis, for respondents

PER CURIAM.

Relator by his petition herein requests this court to prohibit respondents from taking any further action in Cause No. C-34771 pending in such court, wherein the plaintiff seeks an order of respondent court restraining and enjoining (1) defendant Handley from becoming a candidate for the office of United States Senator at the Republican State Convention to be held on June 27, 1958, restraining defendant State Committee and defendant Secretary thereof from accepting and recognizing defendant Handley's declaration of candidacy for such office, and from permitting his name to be placed in nomination before the Convention as a candidate for the office of United States Senator; (2) temporarily restraining said defendants from such acts until a hearing can be held and thereafter temporarily enjoining defendants from such acts during the pendency of this suit; and (3) directing defendant Secretary and defendant State Committee to declare that said Handley's declaration of candidacy is void.

The complaint alleges that relator herein, as the Governor of the State of Indiana, was elected for a four year term beginning January 14, 1957, and is ineligible to be a candidate of the Republican Party for the office of United States Senator in the election to be held on November 4, 1958, or to serve in such office if nominated and elected for the reason that he is ineligible under the provisions of Article 5, § 24 of the Constitution of Indiana which provides:

'Neither the Governor nor Lieutenant Governor shall be eligible to any other office, during the term for which he shall have been elected.'

Relator herein asserts that the trial court (1) 'may not sit as a court of equity to determine a political question;' and (2) 'the eligibility or qualification of a United States Senator is not subject to the jurisdiction of either State or Federal courts; but the sole jurisdiction of this question is in the Senate itself.'

Relator, as a defendant below, filed answer in abatement asserting that respondent court 'does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this cause of action', and does not have the power to grant the relief sought by plaintiff in his complaint. The plea in abatement was overruled and the action in this court followed.

We issued a temporary writ to which respondents duly filed their return. The return is devoted principally to the first question raised by relator in his petition herein and for the reasons which will presently appear, we deem it unnecessary to consider further this part of respondents' return.

The question here presented concerns the construction of certain provisions of both the Federal and State Constitutions and are of grave public concern.

Because of the importance of the issue here involved and of the state-wide public interest in its timely determination, we feel that this court would be failing in its judicial duty if it did not advance this cause on the docket and expedite our decision, and proceed to decide the case on its merits, that is--Do the courts of this State have jurisdiction to decide whether the Governor of Indiana has the right to be a candidate for the office of United States Senator 'during the term for which he shall have been elected' as Governor?

Eligibility refers to the qualifications to hold an office--competency to hold the office if chosen, and is synonymous with qualifications. Carroll v. Green, 1897, 148 Ind. 362, 364, 47 N.E. 223; Shuck v. State ex rel. Cope, 1893, 136 Ind. 63, 70, 35 N.E. 993; 29 C.J.S. p. 663.

Relator has filed his declaration of candidacy for nomination as a candidate for United States Senator in the Republican State Convention to be held on June 27, 1958, as provided by law. 1

Under the laws of the State of Indiana the Republican State Convention is as much an integral part of the election process as is the primary election at which candidates for the House of Representatives in Congress are nominated. It performs the same function in the nomination of candidates for United States Senator and State officers as to the local primaries in the nomination of candidates for Congress and local officers. State ex rel. Buttz v. Marion Cir. Ct., 1947, 225 Ind. 7, 20, 72 N.E.2d 225, 170 A.L.R. 187; Cf: United States v. Classic, 1941, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368; Smith v. Allwright, 1943, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987, 151 A.L.R. 1110; State ex rel. Wettengel v. Zimmerman, 1946, 249 Wis. 237, 24 N.W.2d 504.

Since the State Convention is an integral part of our election process, Congress, under Article 1, § 5 of the Constitution of the United States, 2 has the same jurisdiction of Conventions for the nomination of United States Senator in Indiana as it has over the general election at which a United States Senator is elected.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution. Smith v. Allwright, supra, 1944, 321 U.S. 649, 661, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987, 151 A.L.R. 1110; United States v. Classic, supra, 1941, 313 U.S. 299, 314, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368.

Under these decisions the same rules of law are applicable to a State Convention in Indiana for the nomination for United States Senator as are applicable to an election for United States Senator. Cf. State ex rel. Wettengel v. Zimmerman, supra, 1946, 249 Wis. 237, 243, 24 N.W.2d 504, 507.

This court was confronted with a question involving the qualifications of a candidate for the Indiana State Senate who was nominated in a primary election, in Lucas v. McAfee, 1940, 217 Ind. 534, 29 N.E.2d 403. In that case Lucas was declared nominated in the Democratic primary election to be one of the two candidates for the Indiana Senate from Lake County. He received more votes than did McAfee, who thereupon filed an action for recount and contest in which he relied on the provisions of Acts 1921, ch. 83, § 1, p. 179, being § 49-303, Burns' 1951 Replacement, which prohibits any person from holding office if he has been convicted of certain crimes, and on Acts 1935, ch. 82, § 2, p. 238 (now Acts 1945, ch. 208, § 342, p. 680, being § 29-5502, Burns' 1949 Replacement) which provides that an election contest might be had on the ground that the contestee had theretofore been convicted of an infamous crime.

This court there held that by Article 4, § 10 of our Constitution exclusive jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of a candidate for the General Assembly was vested in the respective Houses of the Legislature, that the courts have no jurisdiction thereof, and the fact that the controversy arose out of a primary election contest was immaterial. At page 540 of 217 Ind., 29 N.E.2d at page 404, speaking through Judge Shake, we said:

'The controlling circumstance in this case is that the appellee McAfee has undertaken to invoke the jurisdiction of a court to determine the qualifications of a person seeking a seat in the state Senate. The fact that the controversy arose out of a primary election contest is immaterial so far as the substantial issue is concerned. The answer would necessarily be the same however the question arose. * * * As to these particular officers, the specific terms of the Constitution transcend the statutes and deprive the courts of jurisdiction of the subject-matter.' See also In re McGee, 1951, 36 Cal.2d 592, 226 P.2d 1.

The principle announced in the Lucas case in which the constitutional provision involved is similar to Article 1, § 5 of the Constitution of the United States, would also apply where the qualifications for a candidate for United States Senator are involved.

Article 6, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution provides:

' This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'

The Constitution and laws of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution. Their obligation '* * * is imperative upon the state judges, in their official, and not merely in their private, capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the state, but according to the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States--'the supreme law of the land.'' Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1816, 1 Wheat. 304, 340-341, 4 L.Ed. 97.

'The Constitution and laws of the United States determine what shall be the qualifications for federal offices, and state Constitutions and laws can neither add to nor take away from them. This has been repeatedly decided in Congress in the case of persons elected to seats therein, when provisions in the state Constitution, if valid, would render them ineligible.'

'Legislative elections are determined by the body for a seat in which the election is had. This is expressly so provided by the Constitution in the case of the two houses of Congress, and the judiciary can in no manner interfere with their conclusions.' Cooley's General Principles of Constitutional Law, 3d Ed., pp. 285, 290....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Joyner v. Mofford
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 23, 1983
    ...from running for other positions until six months after the expiration of their term) (dictum); State ex rel. Handley v. Superior Court of Marion County, 238 Ind. 421, 151 N.E.2d 508 (1958) (governor not eligible for United States Senate); Riley v. Cordell, 200 Okla. 390, 194 P.2d 857 (1948......
  • Redmond v. Carter
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1976
    ...v. Civil Service Com'n of County of Alameda, 61 Cal.2d 331, 38 Cal.Rptr. 625, 392 P.2d 385 (1964); State v. Superior Court of Marion County, Inc., 238 Ind. 421, 151 N.E.2d 508 (1958); Riley v. Cordell, 200 Okl. 390, 194 P.2d 857 (1948); Minielly v. State, 242 Or. 490, 411 P.2d 69 (1966); Be......
  • Ray v. State Election Bd.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 30, 1981
    ...from being on both parties' ballots the State has infringed upon this fundamental right. Citing State ex rel. Handley v. Superior Court of Marion County, (1958) 238 Ind. 421, 151 N.E.2d 508, he further argues "qualifications for membership in the house of representatives ... are those provi......
  • State ex rel. Davis v. Adams
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1970
    ...support the invalidation of Ch. 70--80. ex rel. Killoran, 42 Del. 405, 35 A.2d 903 (1944); State ex rel. Handley v. Superior Court of Marion County, 238 Ind. 421, 151 N.E.2d 508 (1958); State ex rel. Chandler v. Howell, 104 Wash. 99, 175 P. 569 As stated in Holley v. Adams, Supra, the Flori......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT